HomeMy WebLinkAboutATLAS ROOFING PUD - FINAL - 32-96A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE RELATED DOCUMENT0
0
®TST,INC .
Consulting Engineers
EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE
CLIENT: Atlas Roofing P.U.D.
PROJECT: Erosion Control Bond
Project No. 10-868-001
By: DLP
Date: 4-18-97
REV. 5/27/97
No.
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
Total
Continents
EROSION CONTROL
1
Reseed/Mulch
0.26
AC.
$636.00
$165.36
2
Silt Fence
286
L.F.
$3.00
$858.00
Construction Cost
$1,023.36
1.5 x (Construction Cost)
$1,535.04
Total Security
$1,535.04
CITY RESEEDING COST
I
RcseAd/Mulch
0.53
AC.
$636.00
$337.08
Construction Cost
$337.08
1.5 x (Construction Cost)
$505.62
Total Security
$505.62
•
TST, INC.
Mr. Glen Schlueter
May 27, 1997
Page 2
existing), and thereby reduce the flow in the gutter of Taft Hill Road as well as the flow which
has historically crossed the southeast corner of the car wash site and then into the Taft Hill Road
gutter.
I hope this letter has provided the documentation you requested pertaining to these issues. I have
also included herewith a revised Erosion Control Cost Estimate. Please feel free to contact me if
you should have any questions or require any further information. Please also verify below that,
per our conversations, and due to our not increasing the amount of impervious area, this letter is
acceptable to you in lieu of a full Final Drainage Report. Please return one signed copy for my
records.
Respectfully,
TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
/e�fHumann, P.E.
SFH/nr
Accepted in lieu of Final Drainage Report.
STORMWATER UTILITY
Glen Schlueter
i
L_�
Mr. Glen Schlueter
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
235 Mathews
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: Atlar Roofing P. U.D.
Project No. 10-868-001
Dear Glen,
May 27, 1997
I am sending this letter as clarification to the drainage plan for the Final P.U.D. submittal for
Atlas Roofing. In that we are not increasing the impervious area by more than 350 square feet,
we do not believe a drainage report is required. Per our phone conversation last week, I believe
your office had the following concerns:
1. No efficiency calculations for erosion control.
As you are aware, this site was a small commercial use in the past (0.53 acres). The
site is to small for the efficiency calculations to be effective. We therefore took what
I consider to be a conservative approach. In that the site slopes to the north east, we
proposed placement of silt fencing along the entire north (car wash site) and east (Taft
Hill Road) boundaries of this site.
2. No spot elevations on the proposed drive and parking area.
The area where the drive and parking will be is currently paved with asphalt, as is a
substantial portion of the site. This existing pavement slopes north east to Taft Hill
Road. The proposed drive will be laid at the same general grade of the existing
asphalt. I have added spot elevations to the plan.
3. Landscape areas may re -direct flow patterns.
Once again, this site drains north east to Taft Hill Road. If a berm is constructed
which would cause drainage to re -direct around the berm, the drainage still flows to
the curb and gutter of Taft Hill Road.
We are talking about 0.53 acres which has in the past (and currently does) included 15,250 sq. ft.
of impervious area. Our proposal is to reduce that impervious area to 6,860 sq. ft. (to 45% of
TST, INC. �n vv lido. vv is �luddu,[ I1 �C L,�